ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(37), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i37/99827, October 2016 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Free Vibration Analysis of Multi-Storeyed Buildings

resting on different Soil / Rock Media at Hyderabad,
Telangana State, India
Sunil1*, S. S. Asadi1 and S. R. K. Reddy2
1
KL University, Vaddeswaram - 522502, Andhra Pradesh, India; camsunil_inc@yahoo.com, asadienviron.
asadi@gmail.com
2
Gudlavalleru Engineering College, Gudlavalleru, Krishna Dist - 521356, Andhra Pradesh, India;
srkrsatty@gmail.com

Abstract
Earthquake is a spasm of ground shaking caused due to sudden release of energy in the earth’s crust and bulk of ­destruction
takes place within a short duration of time. Past history records reveal that rate of occurrence of earthquakes is an
­increasing phenomena. Bitter experiences on failure/collapse of structures, particularly in urban regions, warn the people
on importance of constructing earthquake resistant buildings. Local soil conditions and interaction between soil /rock
media and the structure indeed affect the response of the structure during an earthquake. In the present investigation, the
western region of Hyderabad, part of the capital of Telangana, is chosen as the study area which consists of different soil/
rock profiles at different locations. Free vibration analysis of a multi-storeyed building is carried out when the foundation
of similar structure rests on different soil/rock media. Frequencies and time periods are worked out for comparison when
the same structure is assumed to be fixed at the base. From the results, it is observed that the variation in time period of
the structure increases with decrease of soil stiffness. It is also noticed that soil-structure interaction effect on time period
of the structure, particularly in loose soils, is of more significant compared to the variation in structure stiffness.

Keywords: Free vibration, Geomorphology, Shear wave velocity, Soil-structure-interaction, Spring constant, Time period

1.  Introduction The earthquakes of Alaska & Nigata in 1994, Kobe in

Earthquakes are the most catastrophic natural hazards
related to ongoing tectonic processes which occur sud-
den and destruction takes place in few minutes. Usually,
when earthquake originates from focus, seismic waves
travel through different rock / soil media and when they
reach the foundation, the structure vibrates. Shear wave
velocity varies from low value in case of flexible soils
to a higher value for stiff soil / rock and hence the geo-
technical properties of different geomorphic units will
change from static to dynamic state and greatly influence
on the response. The seismic response also depends upon
the earthquake magnitude, configuration, ductility and
­construction quality.
1995, Bhuj in 2001 and Indonesia in 2004 are illustrations
for failure of buildings due to soil conditions.
Major metropolitan cities in India have registered
exponential growth of population resulting construction
of many high-rise buildings. When these structures rest
on different soils in different regions, the Soil-Structure
Interaction (SSI) effect influences the parameters like
fundamental time period and frequency of the structure.
2.  Study Area
Hyderabad city, the capital of Telangana state is situated
in the central part of Deccan Plateau of Indian sub-con-
tinent. The study area covering western part of the city is

*Author for correspondence

 Free Vibration Analysis of Multi-Storeyed Buildings resting on different Soil / Rock Media at Hyderabad, Telangana State, India
witnessing enormous growth in the recent past with the
construction of very high rise structures, service reser-
voirs, metro lines, flyovers and other typical structures.
The area is bounded by 17° 21' to 17° 31' north latitudes
and 78°16' to 78°26' east longitudes. The location map of
the study area is as shown in Figure 1. The construction
activities are so intensive and extending to even highly vul-
nerable valley fill zones, tank-bed area, hill-slopes, which
are sensitive to the soil-structure interaction. Seismo-
tectonically, the study area is situated in a seismically
more active Dharwar Craton of Indian Peninsular Shield,
which is being subjected to medium to major earthquakes.
The morpho-structural zoning and the isoseismal maps
of Hyderabad and its environs are shown in the Figure.2
respectively. Morpho-structurally, the Hyderabad region
is classified as a circular morpho-structure and represents
a bowl-like depression with elevated margins with alti-
tudes varying from 300 to 600m. above msl. This may be
attributed to the behaviour of river Manjira in NW and
Krishna in SE, which have taken diversion because of
­up-liftment of bowl structure of Hyderabad granites.
Figure 1.  Study area Location.
Figure 2.  Morpho structural Zoning Map of Hyderabad
with Lineaments (Isoseismal Map (MSK scale) of Hyderabad
and its surroundings.
2 Vol 9 (37) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
Some of the first order lineaments are seismically
active and Hyderabad region has experienced mild tremor
activity during 14th Jan 1982 to 16th October 1983 in
Gandipet, Osmansagar and again in 2000 in Jubilee Hills
and Medchal with earthquake intensity <5. This mild
seismic activity continues as long as the upliftment of the
circular structure. Hyderabad is falling in III-IV intensity
on MSK intensity scale and is in the close proximity of
Medchal with IV-V intensity1.
3.  Soil-Structure Interaction
The method of analysis commonly used by structural
engineers assumes that the building is fixed at the base. In
reality the building rests on the soil, and hence the analy-
sis based on soil/rock conditions gives more realistic and
reasonable results.
The study area is composed of various types of
­geomorphic units/ landforms2 as shown in Figure 3.
These units have been grouped into five categories for
the purpose of analysis of geotechnical evaluation. The
dynamic response of similar building behaves differently
in different units during an earthquake. Assuming the
chosen building rests on shallow foundation, the soil /
rock units of the study area are classified into five types
for the a­ nalysis as given below.
Type S1 – Silty Clay : Pediplain with moderate weathering
associated with valleys and tank beds
Type S2 – Clayey sand / Colluvial soils: Valley fills
­associated with fractures.
Type S3 – Weathered rock : Pediplain with shallow
­weathering and residual mound
Type S4 – Fractured and Fissured rock/ Hard disintegrated
rock: Pediment and Pediment Inselberg, rocky knobs and
denudational hills.
Figure 3.  Geomorphological Map of the Study area.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Sunil, S. S. Asadi and S. R. K. Reddy

Type S5 – Hard massive granite: Residual hills, Inselberg

and Sheet rock.

4.  Geotechnical Studies

In view of rapid advancements in construction ­technology
and design of structures, the strength parameters have
become pre-requisite for selection of specific soil or rock
type. Before evaluating dynamic behaviour of soils, it
is important to evaluate the static properties of various
geomorphic units which influence the effect of SSI on Figure 4.  Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Wave
response of structures. Keeping this in view, tests were Velocity.
conducted on different types of soil / rock samples of
the study area and the properties like mass density, shear
modulus, young’s modulus and bearing capacity values
are obtained and presented in Table 1
The values of shear wave velocity and poisson’s ratio3
of the five classified types of soil / rock units are taken for
the use in the analysis and are presented in Table 1. The
variation of shear modulus with respect to the shear wave
velocity is presented in Figure 4.

5. Mathematical Models for the

Analysis
A conventional twelve storey building is chosen for the
analysis to calculate natural frequencies and time periods
of the structure considering SSI effect when similar struc-
ture rests on different soils / rock media and the results are
compared with the values obtained when the structure is
assumed to be fixed at the base as shown in Figure 5.
Table 1.  Geotechnical properties of various
geomorphic units
Property of the Soil / Rock Type
Units
Material S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Shear
Wave Vs m/s 60 150 400 1250 2700
Velocity
Mass Figure 5.  Building Model with (a) Fixed at Base (b) Soil
ρ KN − Sec2 / m4 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.10 2.60
Density Structure Interaction
Poisson's
μ 0.45 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.30
ratio 5.1  Soil Model
Shear Gs = ρ
KN / m2 Χ 105 0.06 0.41 .04 32.81 189.54 The dynamic model of soil requires the representation
Modulus V s2
Young's of soil mass, soil stiffness and damping factors allowing
Es KN / m2 Χ 105 0.18 1.13 8.09 85.31 492.80
Modulus for strain dependence and variation of soil properties.
Bearing The structure is assumed to rest on uniform elastic half-
P KN / m2 60 200 300 400 450
Capacity space and soil-spring approach4 is used to model the

Vol 9 (37) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 Free Vibration Analysis of Multi-Storeyed Buildings resting on different Soil / Rock Media at Hyderabad, Telangana State, India

Table 2.  Mass and Stiffness values of structure and Soil / Rock
S .No
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
1 m1 KN − sec2 / m 261 261 261 261 261
2 m1 to m11 KN − sec2 / m 390 390 390 390 390
3 m12 KN − sec / m
2
224 224 224 224 224
4 m0 KN − sec / m
2
1238 670 520 394 311
5 k1 & k2 KN / m x 106 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
6 k3 to k12 KN / m x 109 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.23
7 kx KN − m x 10 5
2.96 84.00 487.40 4468.00 22900.00
8 kϕ KN − m x 105 143.00 274.30 992.00 5239.00 27066.00
9 l KN − m − sec 2
67470.00 60672.00 58860.00 57348.00 5635.00
10 l/h 2
KN − sec / m
2
6589.00 5925.00 5748.00 5600.00 5503.00

soil-structure interaction. The most rudimentary method

of modelling the soil is to use soil springs located at the
base of the structure. Since the structures are usually
designed for gravity loads only horizontal and rocking
springs are considered. These equivalent spring constants
for five different classified soil types of the study area are
worked out based on the formulae5 as given below and the
values are presented in Table 2.
Equivalent stiffness values of soil springs are:
i) Horizontal stiffness, Figure 6.  Constants βx, βϕ, βz for rectangular bases (after
kx (kN/m) = 2(1+ ν) Gβx (BL)½ Whitman and Richart)
ii) Rocking stiffness,
kψ (kN-m) = 1 G− v βψ BL2
Where
B and L - Width and length of footing perpendicular and
along the direction of excitation
βx and βψ - Coefficients that are functions of L/B ratio as
in Figure 6.
The variation of horizontal and rocking spring ­constant
values (kx & kψ) with respect to shear wave ­velocity are
shown in Figure. 7

Figure 7.  Variation of Horizontal/ Rocking stiffness with

5.2  Structure Model
A twelve storey building 21m x12m size in plan, with two
soft stories at bottom for car parking and other floors for
office purpose, has been choosen for free vibration analy-
sis. It is idealized as mass-spring-dash pot system treating
it as one having twelve degrees of freedom with fixed base
condition and fourteen degrees of freedom when SSI is
considered. The loads are lumped at the nodes of each
floor level. According to IS 1893 (2002) code, live load is
reduced by 25% and no live load is considered at terrace
Shear wave velocity
roof. The inter storey stiffness 'k' is worked out by adding
the stiffness values of all columns (Σ kc) and stiffness of all
in-fill walls parallel to the direction of lateral loads (Σ kw)
in each storey.
Stiffness of each column is calculated by taking
kc = 12EcIc/h2
In case of infilled walls, the system is modelled as a
braced frame approximating the infill wall as an ­equivalent

4 Vol 9 (37) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Sunil, S. S. Asadi and S. R. K. Reddy

diagonal strut. The vital approach4 to ­determine the Table 3.  Fundamental time periods and natural
effective width of equivalent diagonal strut (we) which frequencies
depends upon Configuration of the Building
i) The length of contact between the wall and the ­column, Fundamental time Natural Frequencies
αh and period (seconds) ( Hz)
ii) The length of contact between the wall and the beam, Sl. Soil / With
αl. No. Rock type two soft with two
Without
Without soft stories
where stories soft
soft stories at lower
at lower stories
1 1 level
π È Ec I c h ˘ 4 È Ec I b l ˘ 4 level
αh = Í ˙ and α l = π Í ˙ Eq (1)
2 Î 2 Emt sin 2q ˚ Î Emt sin 2q ˚ 1 S1 2.75 2.68 0.36 0.37
The formulations of Stafford Smith (1966) given below 2 S2 1.96 1.86 0.51 0.54
are used to2 calculate stiffness of infill wall, kw, where 3 S3 1.15 1.06 0.87 0.94
AE cos q
kw = m l 4 S4 0.74 0.59 1.35 1.69
d
5 S5 0.62 0.37 1.56 2.70
in which,
Èh ˘
Îl ˚
)
ld = ) h2 + l 2 ; θ = tan-1 Í ˙ , A = wex t and we = 2 α h + α l ,
1 2 2
6
Fixed
base
0.62 0.35 1.61 2.86
Where,
A– Area of cross section of the member
Ec– Young’s modulus value of reinforced cement
­concrete
h – Height of the wall/column
Em – Young’s modulus value of masonry
Ib – Moment of inertia of beam element
Ic– Moment of inertia of column element
L – Length of the wall (a)
t – Thickness of the wall
The total equivalent stiffness of each storey is taken as,
k = ∑ kc + ∑ kw.6
The soil mass (m0) for each type of soil is worked out
considering the weight of the footing and the weight soil
above it.
The mass and stiffness values of each storey of the
structure and soil masses & stiffness are worked out and
(b)
presented in the Table 2. Free vibration7-10 analysis is car-
ried out for obtaining the fundamental frequencies and Figure 8.  Variation of Fundamental Time period with
time periods of the building when similar structure rests Shear Wave velocity Variation of Fundamental Frequency
on five different types of soils that are classified as given with Shear Wave Velocity
in Chapter 3.0 Where [M] – Mass matrix,
[k] – Stiffness matrix,
ẍ – Horizontal acceleration,
6.  Method of Analysis
x – Horizontal displacement
Using the combined mathematical model of both ­structure
Undamped free vibration analysis is carried out to obtain
and soil with masses and springs as in Figure 5, the equi-
the time periods and natural frequencies when the build-
librium equations are formulated and put them in matrix
ing rests on the five categorized types of soil/rock units
form treating the building as one with 14 degrees of freedom
[M] ẍ + [k] x = 0 and also when the building is assumed to be fixed at the

Vol 9 (37) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 Free Vibration Analysis of Multi-Storeyed Buildings resting on different Soil / Rock Media at Hyderabad, Telangana State, India
base treating it as one with 12 degrees of freedom. The
values are tabulated in Table 3.
The variation of fundamental time periods and ­natural
frequencies with respect to the shear wave velocity are
presented in Figure 8.
7.  Result Analysis
The shear wave velocity of the soil is an important
parameter which influences the dynamic behaviour of
geotechnical properties like shear modulus, damping
coefficient and poisson’s ratio.
Generally, shear wave velocity increases with the
­stiffness of soil and varies between 60m/s for loose soils
and 2700 m/s for hard rock. Accordingly, the dynamic
shear modulus value is observed to range between 0.06
x 105 KN/m2 for silty clayey soils and 190 x 105 KN/m2
for hard granite rock. This exponential increase is due to
the multiplication of soil density with the square of shear
wave velocity. Similarly, the horizontal and rocking spring
constant values of the soil / rock units increase in range
between 3.0 and 143.0 x105 for loose soils and 22.9 to 27.1
x 108 KN/m for hard rock respectively. The time period
of the building in general decreases with the increase of
stiffness of the soil. The time period of the building with
two bottom soft stories ranges from 2.75 sec. for clayey
soils to 0.62 sec. for hard rock; whereas for building with-
out soft stories, it varies from 2.68 sec. for clayey soils to
0.35 sec for hard rock. This attributes that the variation
in time period of the building with or without soft stories
at lower level is insignificant when the building rests on
loose soils; however this variation is observed significant
when the building rests on stiff soils / hard rock. From the
above, it can be concluded that the variation in response
is less when the flexible structures rest on stiff soils / rock
and is more when rigid structures rest on flexible soils.
8.  Conclusions
• From present study, it is observed that structures
­resting on hard rock or firm soil behave well during an
earthquake than the structures resting on loose soils.
• It is noticed that shear wave velocity influences
­significantly the change in shear modulus of soil and
accordingly the horizontal and rocking spring con-
stant values increase exponentially from loose soil to
hard rock.
6 Vol 9 (37) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
• The fundamental time period of the building ­invariably
decreases with the increase of soil stiffness. However,
for buildings with cellar floors this variation is not
much in case of loose soils; whereas for similar build-
ings without cellars this variation is significant when
they rest on stiff / hard rock.
• The fundamental frequency and time period values
of the building when it is assumed to rest on hard
rock (Type S5) are very close to the values obtained
when the building is assumed fixed at the base. This
shows that the SSI effect when the structure rest
on stiff soil / hard rock is insignificant and can be
neglected.
9.  References
  1. Rao BR. Historical seismicity and deformation rates in
the Indian Peninsular Shield. Journal of Seismology. 2000;
4(3):247–58.
  2. David J, Dowrick D. Earthquake resistant Design for
Engineers and Architects, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.1996; 1–98.
  3. Jami M, Mousavi EJ, Hadizadeh A, Pourkermani M. The
Evaluation of Saravan Fault Activities in Iran on the Basis of
Geomorphologic Evidences. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology. 2013 Apr; 6(4):1–6.
  4. Reddy SRK. Terrain Evaluation and Influence of Soil-
Structure Interaction on Seismic Response of Structures
in Urban Environs Proc. of 3rd International Conference
on Protection of Structures against Hazards: Italy. 2006;
26(3):235–42.
  5. Whitman RV, Richart FE. Design procedures for dynami-
cally loaded foundations. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE. 1967; 167–91.
  6. IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 Cirteria for Earthquake resistant
Design of Structures Fifth Revision.
  7. Pgarwal P, Shrikhande M. Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Printice Hall of India, New Delhi. 2006.
  8. Nishanth M, Dhir P, Davis R. Stochastic Free Vibration
Analysis of RC Buildings. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology. 2016 Aug; 9(30):1–5.
  9. Alexander J, Augustine BSM. Free Vibration and Damping
Characteristics of GFRP and BFRP Laminated Composites
at Various Boundary Conditions. Indian Journal of Science
and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(12):1–7.
10. Gasemzadeh B, Azarafza R, Sahebi Y, Motallebi A. Analysis
of Free Vibration of Cylindrical Shells on the Basis of Three
Dimensional Exact Elasticity Theory. Indian Journal of
Science and Technology. 2012 Sep; 5(9):1–3.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology